In the 1901 case of Patton v. Brady, Executrix, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over a will and testament. The testator had left his estate to his wife for her lifetime use and then to their children upon her death. However, one of the sons contested this arrangement on grounds that it was not in accordance with Kentucky state law which required estates be divided equally among all children immediately after the parent's death. The son argued that he should receive his share immediately rather than waiting until after his mother's death as stipulated by the will. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that under common law principles, a man has full power to dispose of his property as he sees fit unless specifically prohibited by statute or constitutional provision; there were no such prohibitions in this case under Kentucky law at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Patton v. Brady, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Brady was incorrect due to an improper interpretation of contract law. The dissenting justices believed that there had been no breach of contract by Patton as he had fulfilled his obligations under the agreement and therefore should not be held liable for damages. They contended that any perceived lack on Patton’s part could have been addressed through negotiation or modification of terms rather than litigation. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's application of estoppel principles, arguing instead that these principles did not apply because there was no evidence showing reliance on any misrepresentation by Patton nor detriment suffered by Brady as a result thereof.